California Supreme Court Watch

#22-240 Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors, Inc., S275431. (9th Circ. No. 21-16201; 39 F.4th 1176; Northern District of California; D.C. No. 5:18-cv-06761-BLF.) Request under California Rules of Court, rule 8.548, that this court decide questions of California law presented in a matter pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The questions presented are: “(1) Is time spent on an employer’s premises in a personal vehicle and waiting to scan an identification badge, have security guards peer into the vehicle, and then exit a Security Gate compensable as ‘hours worked’ within the meaning of California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 16? (2) Is time spent on the employer’s premises in a personal vehicle, driving between the Security Gate and the employee parking lots, while subject to certain rules from the employer, compensable as ‘hours worked’ or as ‘employer-mandated travel’ within the meaning of California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 16? (3) Is time spent on the employer’s premises, when workers are prohibited from leaving but not required to engage in employer-mandated activities, compensable as ‘hours worked’ within the meaning of California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 16, or under California Labor Code Section 1194, when that time was designated as an unpaid ‘meal period’ under a qualifying collective bargaining agreement?”

Request for certification granted: 8/31/2022

Case fully briefed: 10/26/2022

Cause argued and submitted: 1/04/2024

Opinion published: 3/25/2024

See the Order Certifying Questions to the Supreme Court of California.

See the Oral Argument.

See the California Supreme Court Opinion.  (Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors, Inc. (2024) 15 Cal.5th 908.)

“We granted a request from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to answer three questions about Wage Order No. 16 and the scope of the term ‘hours worked.’  First: ‘Is time spent on an employer’s premises in a personal vehicle and waiting to scan an identification badge, have security guards peer into the vehicle, and then exit a Security Gate compensable as ‘hours worked’ within the meaning of . . . Wage Order No. 16?”  (Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors, Inc. (9th Cir. 2022) 39 F.4th 1176, 1177 (Huerta).)  Second: ‘Is time spent on the employer’s premises in a personal vehicle, driving between the Security Gate and the employee parking lots, while subject to certain rules from the employer, compensable as “hours worked” or as “employer-mandated travel” within the meaning of . . . Wage Order No. 16?’  (Ibid.)  And third: ‘Is time spent on the employer’s premises, when workers are prohibited from leaving but not required to engage in employer-mandated activities, compensable as “hours worked” within the meaning of . . . Wage Order No. 16, or under California Labor Code Section 1194, when that time was designated as an unpaid “meal period” under a qualifying collective bargaining agreement?’ (Ibid.)

We answer these questions as follows:  First, an employee’s time spent on an employer’s premises awaiting and undergoing an employer-mandated exit procedure that includes the employer’s visual inspection of the employee’s personal vehicle is compensable as ‘hours worked’ within the meaning of Wage Order No. 16, section 2(J).

Second, the time that an employee spends traveling between the Security Gate and the employee parking lots is compensable as ’employer-mandated travel’ under Wage Order No. 16, section 5(A) if the Security Gate was the first location where the employee’s presence was required for an employment-related reason other than the practical necessity of accessing the worksite.  Separately, this travel time is not compensable as ‘hours worked’ because an employer’s imposition of ordinary workplace rules on employees during their drive to the worksite in a personal vehicle does not create the requisite level of employer control.

Third, when an employee is covered by a collective bargaining agreement that complies with Labor Code section 512, subdivision (e) and Wage Order No. 16, section 10(E), and provides the employee with an ‘unpaid meal period,’ that time is nonetheless compensable under the wage order as ‘hours worked’ if the employer prohibits the employee from leaving the employer’s premises or a designated area during the meal period and if this prohibition prevents the employee from engaging in otherwise feasible personal activities.  An employee may bring an action under Labor Code section 1194 to enforce the wage order and recover unpaid wages for that time.”

Justice Liu authored the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Guerrero and Justices Corrigan, Kruger, Groban, Jenkins, and Evans concurred.

In the news: Knopp and McDermott, California Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Compensable “Hours Worked,” National Law Review (Apr. 4, 2024).